The first – and potentially only – debate between the 45th and 46th presidents of the US constituted a clear win for former US president Donald Trump, as far more viewers focused on President Joe Biden’s apparent physical and mental infirmities than Trump’s evasions and trafficking in partial or outright lies. The question now is what, if any, difference it would make in the presidential election that is now just four months away.
The debate most likely increases the odds that Trump would occupy the Oval Office come noon on Jan. 20 next year. Going into the debate on Thursday last week, Trump was slightly ahead in many of the national polls and, more importantly, in the half-dozen “swing” states that would most likely determine the election’s outcome. The debate only added to this advantage.
The context favors Trump. This year has already proven to be a tough one for incumbents seeking re-election, as outcomes in India and France have demonstrated (with the UK going to the polls yesterday). Polls also show a low approval rating for the prime ministers of Japan and Canada, which could lead to a change of leadership in those countries. Biden and the US are poised to be consistent with this trend.
Like many of his fellow incumbents, Biden has struggled to manage rising immigration and economic challenges. His failure to deal effectively with the southern border has allowed about 10 million men, women and children to enter the US illegally.
Then there are the effects of inflation, something voters are reminded of every time they go to the grocery store or fill their car with gasoline. Biden can point to domestic and foreign-policy accomplishments, but they are less salient to many Americans.
Most critical is the question of his age. Doubts are widely and deeply held that Biden is simply too old for what is arguably the world’s most demanding and important job. He is 81, turns 82 in November, and, if re-elected, would turn 86 while still in the White House. He is also an old 81. As the debate demonstrated, he walks stiffly, loses his train of thought, and has a weak and raspy voice. Trump is only three years younger and makes little sense when he speaks, often taking bizarre rhetorical detours, but manages to project a more vigorous image.
Given Biden’s better outing at a campaign stop the day after the debate, some believe he can bounce back. After all, former US presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama recovered from poor debate performances. However, that was because they were seen as great orators who simply had a bad night. Biden’s problem is that his poor showing reinforced an already-entrenched narrative that would be difficult, if not impossible, to alter. His performance could even threaten to turn him into something of a lame duck, further weakening his influence at home and abroad.
All this said, Biden would be the Democratic Party candidate chosen at the party’s convention in August unless he takes himself out of the running and frees his pledged delegates to vote for someone else. Who this “someone” would be — Vice President Kamala Harris, a sitting governor or senator, a member of his Cabinet – is anybody’s guess.
It is obvious that Biden and his inner circle are resisting calls (including from sympathetic editors at major news outlets) for him to step aside. Neither he nor his loyal lieutenants, many of whom have been close to him for decades, have given any indication that the president would bow out.
Biden’s declining political fortunes could well prove to be a drag on other Democratic candidates come autumn. It is possible that a Trump victory could help bring about a Republican takeover of the Senate at the same time Republicans hold the House of Representatives. Together with a US Supreme Court that has increasingly demonstrated sympathy for positions supported by Trump and congressional Republicans, this would bring about the US equivalent of a parliamentary system, with power consolidated in the hands of a party that is better understood as radical rather than conservative.
There would be few checks on power strong enough to mitigate this imbalance; on the contrary, Trump’s plans to weaken the independence of the civil service, together with his promise to politicize the US Department of Justice and regulatory agencies, would concentrate power further. Trump would be free to lower taxes, impose tariffs, further restrict access to abortion, ease already loose controls on gun ownership, enforce immigration law as he sees fit and increase the enormous debt.
Foreign policy would also be vulnerable to significant change, because the US political system gives broad latitude to the executive. It is quite possible that Trump would reduce or even eliminate US support for Ukraine, hollow out US commitments to NATO, give Israel an even freer hand to prosecute war in Gaza and Lebanon, and build settlements, refuse to participate in global efforts to combat climate change and prioritize bilateral trade issues with China over broader concerns with Beijing’s behavior abroad.
Elections have consequences, and this one more than most, given that the differences between the candidates far exceed any similarities. In the wake of a debate that appears to have tipped the scales against Biden, and with no way of knowing if someone else would be the Democratic candidate and how he or she would fare, US friends and allies should prepare themselves for potentially major changes come January.
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners and the author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens and the weekly newsletter Home & Away.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily
War in the Middle East, global terrorism and the Ukraine war pose significant threats to the global economy. However, according to Global Guardian, a leading security solutions firm, a conflict between China and Taiwan would cause the greatest disruption since World War II. Its Taiwan Shock Index (TSI) analyzes the potential global impacts of such a war. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) rhetoric about rejuvenating the People’s Republic of China heavily emphasizes “reunification” with Taiwan. Experts differ on when this might happen. Some point to 2027, the centenary of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), as a symbolic and strategic milestone. Others
Many local news media last week reported that COVID-19 is back, citing doctors’ observations and the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) statistics. The CDC said that cases would peak this month and urged people to take preventive measures. Although COVID-19 has never been eliminated, it has become more manageable, and restrictions were dropped, enabling people to return to their normal way of life due to decreasing hospitalizations and deaths. In Taiwan, mandatory reporting of confirmed cases and home isolation ended in March last year, while the mask mandate at hospitals and healthcare facilities stopped in May. However, the CDC last week said the number